Las Vegas Sun

September 22, 2014

Currently: 95° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Man, 23, arrested in early-morning domestic violence dispute

Click to enlarge photo

Metro Police arrest Jonathan Brandon, 23, in connection with an early morning domestic violence dispute, April 26, 2012.

Domestic violence location

Metro Police arrested a 23-year-old man Thursday in connection with a domestic violence incident that galvanized SWAT unit involvement outside an apartment complex in the northwest Las Vegas Valley.

Jonathan Brandon was arrested and faces charges of assault with a deadly weapon-domestic violence; battery domestic violence and bench warrants.

Brandon’s arrest follows an early-morning incident at an apartment complex near Rancho Drive and Gowan Road, police said.

Officers were called to the 3700 block of Snorkel Circle when a taxi driver and apartment neighbors witnessed a violent domestic argument around 7 a.m. between a man and a woman, police said.

Witnesses told police that the woman was preparing to the leave the man and that she began packing her belongings into the taxi she called.

Brandon is suspected of revealing a handgun to the taxi driver and preventing the woman from leaving, police said.

The driver then fled the scene and could hear the woman screaming for help as she was forced back into the apartment, police said.

SWAT and Metro negotiators were called to the apartment, which was later determined to be unoccupied, police said.

Later in the day the two were found on foot in the vicinity of the apartment, police said. Brandon was booked into at Clark County Detention Center.

Anyone with information about this event can call Metro’s domestic violence detail at 828-4451or Crime Stoppers at 385-5555 to remain anonymous.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 16 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Of course according to Crimcops and KillerB on the previous article, Metro should never have entered the apartment or tried to save the woman at all.

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/apr...

  2. @wendor...."Of course according to Crimcops and KillerB on the previous article, Metro should never have entered the apartment or tried to save the woman at all."

    Well at least you have lying as a special skill on your resume.

    I never once said that Metro shouldn't have tried to save anyone. I did state that entering an apartment that they were not sure was the right apartment, and weren't sure was even occupied was a gross violation of the the 4th Amendment.

    I also pointed out that this violation of the U.S. Constitution did nothing to save this woman, seeing as she wasn't there.

    And since the man the arrested was walking down the street peacefully with the suspected victim, it doesn't appear she was in need of saving. Unless of course they have added Felony Stroll to the NRS.

  3. You have a very warped opinion of the 4th amendment. But that goes with you lack of any other knowledge of the US Constitution.

    People can read your comments on the previous article for themselves and judge you.

    Police responded to the apartment that witnesses specifically identified the victim as being taken into at gunpoint yet you still insist that the police response was inappropriate.

    No one (including the previous article) except you has ever said that the police "were not sure [it] was the right apartment". That's something you made up yourself. The closest you can come is the reporter of the previous article who said that the police response was "possibly at the apartment", which indicates that the reporter was unsure, not the police.

    Face it, you prejudged on a total lack of information and you were wrong.

  4. And where do you get "walking down the street peacefully"? "Found on foot" doesn't even begin to justify that addition on your part.

  5. So if your doctor told you that you possibly had terminal cancer you would react the same way as you would after the doctor informed you that you definitely has terminal cancer. I doubt that.

    The 4th Amendment isn't very difficult to understand

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    You have done nothing to contest the fact that there was nothing to lead police to reasonably believe that a person within the apartment was in in need of immediate aid. In fact when they entered they were unsure the apartment was occupied. ("Authorities weren't sure the parties involved were actually inside the apartment, police said.")

    Are you really arguing that police saw evidence to give them a reasonable suspicion the apartment they felt could have very well been empty had an injured person inside? It would seem the fact there was no one inside is pretty strong evidence that there was no reason to enter.

    What could a reasonable person see or hear to determine that an injured person was inside an unoccupied apartment?

    And sans any description to the contrary, when the couple was "found on foot," they were acting in a peaceful manner.

    Face it no one in the apartment needed aid, and the police admit they were not sure anyone in the apartment needed their assistance, and golly gee, no one inside the apartment required their assistance. Where are you getting lost?

  6. Very strange.....he looks like such a nice young man.....

  7. If a male American makes it to age 50, his life expectancy jumps to 80 or so. Something about if you're going to do something to get yourself shot you usually do that by 30 or 35 years of age. Looks like some of these guys are not going to make it to 5-0.

  8. Clue Number 2: LEO doesn't release all details. So maybe there were some additional reasons....

  9. "You have done nothing to contest the fact that there was nothing to lead police to reasonably believe that a person within the apartment was in in need of immediate aid."

    Really? And what part of witnesses reporting that the woman was taken into the apartment at gunpoint while screaming for help did you miss?

  10. By wendor.." And what part of witnesses reporting that the woman was taken into the apartment at gunpoint while screaming for help did you miss?"

    The part where police saw the woman taken into the apartment at gunpoint while screaming for help. Police didn't see the woman taken into the apartment at gunpoint while screaming for help. Police didn't see anything to suggest the witness was telling the truth.

    What if the couple was engaged in consensual sexual relations and didn't answer the door? How would that have appeared any different to the police who responded? What if the woman was alone soaking in the tub and didn't answer the door. How would that have appeared any different to the police who responded? What is the woman and left and the man was alone watching adult movies and pleasuring himself? How would that have appeared any different to the police who responded? What if nobody was home?

    What did police observe that made the scenario you suggested more reasonable than the four I suggested. Keep in mind, scenario four is what actually occurred.

  11. Another fine example of a liberal by product.

  12. So crimcops, by your definition an attacker can do ANYTHING to you in front of as many witnesses as can be, but as long as the police didn't see the attack themselves you feel the police should stay out of it and not come to your aid just because you and the attacker are behind a closed locked door with you unable to call out when the police arrive?

    I think you've more than exposed your folly on this one.

  13. @Wendor, Other than the "ANYTHING" and "as many witness as can be" I say absolutely. The police are not welcome in my home unless they have warrant, I invite them or they personally observe that I am in need of help.

    Something tells me that if you came home one day to find your front door kicked in, windows broken allowing easy access to all your possessions, you would be okay to learn that the cops broke in because some random cab driver told called 911 and reported a disturbance. And since you were at work when the cops showed up, it was reasonable for them to assume you were inside beating your wife to a pulp.

    Of course when the find nobody home they take off and everything you own is now easy pickings.

    While you think you've exposed my "folly," an educated person would see that I am heading the warning of a man far, far, far, far wiser than you.

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  14. Ah, now we get the distinction. You're saying that without a warrant the police aren't "welcome" to enter your home.

    Previously you were making the incorrect statement that it would not be LEGAL for them to do so.

    In the circumstances described, it is 100% legal for the police to enter. You, however, are free to be unhappy about it. That's your right.

  15. @Wendor...The reason the police would not be "welcome in my home unless they have warrant, I invite them or they personally observe that I am in need of help" is because they would be their illegally.

    While you may not respect the rights we have, the rights so many have fought and died to protect, I am not us ungrateful as you.

    Still haven't heard what the cops saw that would make a reasonable person decide that someone who wan't their was in immediate need of their assistance.

  16. Sorry, but you need a serious lesson in the definition of "exigent circumstances".

    As you have already admitted, a 911 call originating inside (not necessarily placed by you) is grounds for legal entry by responding officers.

    Similarly, as is true in this case, witnesses reporting an armed man forcing a victim into the residence also qualifies.

    Hate to break it to you, but witness reports of a violent crime in progress (kidnapping in this case) meets the requirements for exigent circumstances.

    Go read United States v. McConney.

    To quote [Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.]

    Sorry, but your requirement that the police personally observe the danger is not consistent with the relevant case law. Witness reports of an armed man forcing a woman into the apartment at gunpoint while she screams for help easily passes the McConney test.

    And as for these rights, I *DID* fight to defend and protect them, something I can almost guarantee that you did not. I just also understand the law and the rights of OTHERS (such as the rights of the victim int his case) which you do not seem to acknowledge. You live in a dream world where everything should bend to conform to your personal desires. Fortunately for the rest of us, especially the victims of violent crime, your personal desires and twisted definition of "legal" have no bearing or weight.